10

Proposal: Vi and vim

I've seen others relate to gvim in proposal questions. See comments. I also have a pocket guide for vi and Vim, which includes "Additional features in vile, elvis, and nvi" (O'Reilly).

Although other editors may be less popular, I think it is important to include them in this site... Better than SO.

5
  • 1
    ..... Why not post your comment as an answer?
    – onebree
    Jan 11, 2015 at 13:49
  • Whatever we choose as the answer for this, it will impact the impending "are neovim questions relevant?" discussion. Questions about nvi, elvis, cream... will be few and far between, so it's not a big deal, but neovim will probably flood the page. Are we ok with that? I'm not so sure. And we can't very easily say "you can ask questions about nvi because nobody cares about it that much but you can't ask questions about neovim because I don't like it even though it's kind of the same thing"
    – Chelo
    Jan 22, 2015 at 10:40
  • I am not familiar with neovim. But if it falls into the category of the site, why not?
    – onebree
    Jan 22, 2015 at 11:34
  • I would suggest to welcome questions about vi/vim-like editors, but not about other programs with a vi/vim-like interface. I use such programs, and usually it is very comforting that they use familiar keybindings, but it is also only a very small subset of what one does in vi/vim. In particular, such programs usually don't include extensive scripting in a VimL-like language. So ed, elvis, nvi, neovim are welcome in my eyes. But vimperator, dwb, zathura, midori, jumanji, uzbl, and about 437 other programs should be excluded. It is good to draw the line at editors.
    – jmc
    Jan 23, 2015 at 6:01
  • 1
    I would suggest we all add our answers as answers so that we can vote on them...
    – derobert
    Jan 23, 2015 at 16:39

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
10

Yes. Any editors which are part of the vi ecosystem (especially if they share an ability to use the same commands, configs and plugins) should be included.

On the other hand "vim inspired" editors or ones with "vim modes" which only share some skin deep items but are really their own kettle of fish might be better served on other sites along with editors that don't have their own sites.

0
8

I see this SE site as supporting the vi text editor community, including associated clones.

I don't believe that text editors which simply support vi hotkeys or vaguely vi-like features belong here. I also don't think applications that aren't text editors should be included.

Examples of what belongs:

  • vi
  • vim
  • gvim
  • nvi
  • neovim

Examples of what doesn't belong:

  • sublime (with vi hotkeys enabled)
  • vifm
  • vimium
2
  • What about viper or evil?
    – Jan Hlavacek
    Jan 24, 2015 at 16:05
  • Personally, I'd say they belong on the emacs site. I wouldn't put them here for the same reason as sublime: a set of hot keys to enable vi-like behavior is not vi.
    – Cody Poll
    Jan 24, 2015 at 23:37
1

I'd love to see neovim.org here

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .